Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Separate from the debate moderated by Ralph Nader last night, Free and Equal is hosting a final third party debate tonight at 9:00 p.m. EST (pre-debate coverage began at 8:00 p.m. EST). As a follow up to the October 23rd debate, only Jill Stein (Green) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) will be facing each other for ninety minutes of questions primarily focusing on foreign policy. It appears that this one isn't being picked up by C-SPAN, but it is being broadcast on RT America on a few cable networks as well as on YouTube (which should work if you have an HTML5 browser, or via the XBMC YouTube plugin). Discuss.

No, we need "instant runoffs". You pick your choices in order and the winner is selected on points.

Hell, at least there is a semblance of a decision by the electorate in that setup. Right now we've got empty fields in Montana having as much of a say in who becomes president as a small city in the Southeast.

But any change would require an Amendment to the Constitution, or (my choice) a Constitutional Convention, which would be so heavily lobbied that we'd end up with a system where the president was chosen by the CEOs of the Fortune 500.

Maybe we have to face the fact that elections just aren't going to get us where we need to go. It's only going to happen by us becoming better citizen/consumers. The answer may not be in our political system at all.

I don't think an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary. All the Constitution says is that states choose Electors, and the Electors vote on the President. It's up to the states how they pick Electors. In practice, they all have a first-past-the-post popular vote, but an individual state could choose to employ IRV or any other system.

Ideally, one would want a lot of states to get together and agree to all implement IRV together. Already, several states have signed pacts to all assign their electors to the winner of the national popular vote (see here [nationalpopularvote.com]). There's no reason we couldn't use the same approach to pass IRV. It's much easier to pass voting reform this way than it is through a Constitutional amendment.

Of course, the two major parties don't want it, so even with the lower bar it's unlikely to happen.

“The choice is between two ways of life: between individual liberty and State domination; between concentration of ownership in the hands of the State and the extension of ownership over the widest number of individuals; between the dead hand of monopoly and the stimulus of competition; between a policy of increasing restraint and a policy of liberating energy and ingenuity; between a policy of levelling down and a policy of opportunity for all to rise upwards from a basic standard. — Sir Winston Churchill [goodreads.com], WOLVERHAMPTON, 23 JULY 1949” (Kudos [powerlineblog.com] )

The U.S. party system is divided into two groups: major and minor parties.

Major parties get more than 5% of the vote at the last general election. Minor parties get less than that.

The difference is major parties are eligible for federal matching campaign funds and have easier ballot access. In order to get on the ballot in a State you have to get a certain number of registered voters to sign a petition.

Major parties have a threshold that is frequently fairly low. Minor parties often have much higher requirements, often 3 - 4 times the number of signatures that a major party candidate will need.

That is why Gary Johnson has "Give me 5%" on his homepage. He knows he isn't going to win, but is aiming to get equal ballot access and financing for the Libertarian Party for future elections. The idea is to maybe break the lock the Republicans and Democrats have on the electoral process.

If you want to see the grip of the Big R and Big D loosened, consider voting for Gary Johnson and contribute towards the 5%. If you're in one of the "undisputed" States that are firmly in the grip of Romney or Obama, consider casting your ballot for Johnson (or Jill Stein of the Green Party) even if you'd normally vote Obama or Romney. This way your vote isn't wasted.

The idea is to maybe break the lock the Republicans and Democrats have on the electoral process.

There is bipartisan support (among politicians) for keeping third parties out.

If you're in one of the "undisputed" States that are firmly in the grip of Romney or Obama, consider casting your ballot for Johnson (or Jill Stein of the Green Party) even if you'd normally vote Obama or Romney

I'm in a "Romney-lock" state, and I gave Gary Johnson my vote. I shudder at 4 more years of Obama (why is no one fuming over Obama's killing of two American citizens with drones?), but I am not under any delusion that Romney would be different.

I don't get the idea that my vote is wasted. It sends a message. If enough of us sent the message.... well, we'd let them know we're still in charge.

why is no one fuming over Obama's killing of two American citizens with drones?

People like you are. Most Americans aren't. Those two citizens took up arms against the United States to make war against it as members of an enemy engaged in war against the United States. Is this a puzzle? They could have surrendered, but didn't. There is precedent for this sort of action. In fact, the Federal government has shot down many Americans in the same status before. There is actually a video representation [youtube.com] of one of these incidents.

This is one of the two men [youtube.com] you worry was treated unfairly

Most Americans aren't. And that is a shame. First, let's just break this down. How do we know he took arms up against the US? Did he start shooting troops and bombing buildings in the US? If he did, how do we know he did? Because the President said he did? Or because he is an asshole who spouted shit? Whether or not the person is a militant asswipe or a blustering fool is not for the President to decide, precisely since there IS NO WAR declared here. So how can this person take up arms against the US? Did I miss the Congressional approval and declaration of war? I don't think I did. Remember that army doctor who opened fire at Fort Hood? Why was he not taken to the woods and shot... or hanged for "taking up arms against the US?" Because he is a CITIZEN and entitled to a fair trial, no matter how stupidly guilty we think he is. I can't believe you're ACTUALLY arguing these people deserved it and their rights can be taken away by the President... It boggles the mind what idiots troll Slashdot.

I don't give a shit how stupid this guy was, or how fucking sick in the head he was for believing the shit he spouted. He did not deserve to have his Constitutional rights as a citizen trampled like they were. Pure and simple, the Obama administration wanted to try fucking non-citizens in US courts... yet he bombs the shit out of a citizen?

Whatever he did, purported to do, thought about doing, tried to do, doesn't matter. Neither we nor the President has the power to rob him of his due process under the Constitution. How is this not bothering you? Sure, he was a jerk and the world is better off now that he's dead, but when does it stop?

Oh let me repeat this... there has been NO declaration of war. None. Congress has not declared war. Period. So you can try and weasel that in all you want, but it's not legal. Remember Jane Fonda? Why was she not arrested during Vietnam? Oh that's right. NO WAR was declared. So the powers available to the government during wartime were not in effect. What the President did was wrong and he should stand trial for it. Period. Is this too hard for you? Maybe I should draw it in crayon so you can see which rights the President violated..... Would that help? I'm sorry, but you amaze the shit out of me... I didn't think there were otherwise intelligent people siding with Obama on this murder. Sorry, it's murder. And with the NDAA, you could be next... or at least left to rot in prison forever... or I could be next, because I'm critical of his highness. People blasted Bush for the expansion of executive power, but I haven't heard a fucking PEEP about it when Obama doesn't just do the same stuff. He EXPANDS it. Bush never ordered the drone assassination of a citizen. Guess "change" means for the worse... not for the better.

You seem to be generally misinformed on this matter, so here are a few things. The Congress passed the resolution noted in the following document: Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks [fas.org]. The Supreme Court of the United States has held this type of Congressional authorization to be equivalent to a declaration of war. If you join the enemy making war on the United States, you can be captured or killed under the law of war - no trial is necessary beforehand. All of your hand waving on these matters is just that. Your lack of familiarity with the personal involvement of an enemy combatant with attacks or attempted attacks doesn't change or weaken the findings against them.

As an American citizen you don't have a Constitutional right to join a terrorist group and attack the United States or its allies. If you join with them, you will be treated like them, i.e. captured or killed as possible or necessary. Renegade Americans may be the most dangerous of all since they know the ins and outs of American society, and can identify weak points for attack, and coach would-be attackers to be more effective. If you go renegade, you accept the consequences of war. If you want a nice trial, then surrender so that charges can be prepared and a trial set.

There is no great mystery about why Al Awlaki was killed. The man actively recruited for Al Qaida, was directly tied to numerous people making attacks, and was apparently involved in planning attacks. The man was an enemy of the American people, whom he plotted to kill in large numbers, an enemy of the state that he hoped to help destroy, and an enemy of humanity as a stateless terrorist, the very kin to pirates, hostis humani generis [wikipedia.org]. Is slavery [indianexpress.com] far behind [frontpagemag.com]?

I do not support many of President Obama's policies, but he is correct in this one, and against that man.

The United States is not rounding up or making war against people who insult the First Lady, or the President, but rather against actual and would be mass murderers, terrorists, war criminals. It is quite amazing to me that so many people get this elementary question wrong, this isn't even close to being hard to understand. Somehow I expect you will amaze me again.

As an American citizen you don't have a Constitutional right to join a terrorist group and attack the United States or its allies. If you join with them, you will be treated like them, i.e. captured or killed as possible or necessary. Renegade Americans may be the most dangerous of all since they know the ins and outs of American society, and can identify weak points for attack, and coach would-be attackers to be more effective. If you go renegade, you accept the consequences of war. If you want a nice tria

You seem to be generally misinformed on this matter, so here are a few things. The Congress passed the resolution noted in the following document: Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks [fas.org]. The Supreme Court of the United States has held this type of Congressional authorization to be equivalent to a declaration of war.

No, it is you who is misinformed. The Supreme Court did not say it was equivalent to the declaration of war, but that it satisfied the War Powers Act that the President required Congressional approval to use military force. Nothing about that means it is a formal declaration of war (against who? A group of people? We generally don't declare war on some folks... usually it's a nation, and yes, we destroyed the Barbary Pirates, but that could be argued was a "nation" of itself, operating in a certain area...

Yes. Because quite frankly the entire business is horse shit. I'm not singling out the two US citizens because I think other people aren't entitled to these rights. I am singling them out because it is a concrete example of the gross violations of the US government's power and a symptom of a much larger problem in the US. Respect for the Constitution.

Would I be misrepresenting your stance if I summarized it thusly: "Whether or not you can blast brown people into a red pulp depends completely and entirely on where they were born"?

You would not only be misrepresenting my stance, but engaging in race-baiting as well. Will it comfort you to know that when it comes to killing foreigners, the United States has mostly killed white and yellow people, AKA Europeans and Asians? Maybe you've heard of World War 2, World War 1, the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812? Vietnam? Korea? Vast numbers of Europeans and Asians dead, not much in the way of "brown people" at all. Feel better?

Oh and that "not surrender" shit? How can you surrender to a drone? We didn't try to arrest him with the help of Yemen. We targeted him and his son and blew them away. Sorry... that argument holds NO water either.

So what. If things get worse because someone gets voted in that shouldnt be because of votes being taken away from the lesser of two evils then the next election and the one after that will keep getting more charged with people that are not going to tolerate the two party system sham that we have been apart of for who knows how long. Eventually something will give.Vote your conscience, thats what's important.

a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama; just like a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush back in 2000.

I don't have a problem with that. I would like to see the war on brown people^H^H^H^Hmarijuana come to an end, so I'm voting for Johnson. If that keeps Obama, the man who ended don't ask don't tell, in office, that's fine with me.

I also contributed to Johnson's campaign. Romney is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. I don't understand why anybody thinks he'll be different from Obama, except that he might just reinstate don't ask don't tell. He sure as hell is not going to repeal federal Romneycare

Those who argue it's a wasted vote are either scared shitless that your message will actually be heard, or can't comprehend that anyone wouldn't welcome their particular party's dominance with open arms.

Actually, I guess those two are probably the same thing. The only difference is whether the person lies to themselves or not.

This should be interesting not because of their relevance to the elections tomorrow because as much as I'd rather have Johnson, Stein, Goode or Anderson as our next president rather than 4 more years of Obamney, I think there is a general discord among people of both the Republican and Democratic parties about their candidates the last couple of years. McCain and Romney haven't really pushed for smaller government or for auditing the Fed, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo nor has he been a very peaceful, anti-war president after murdering a couple of American citizens as judge, jury and executioner via drones, involved the US in yet another war (Libya) and won't even release real statistics of how many innocent Pakistanis our Peace Prize winning president has killed (instead, if they are military-aged males they must be "enemy combatants").

Because of this, I think Stein and Johnson will help to shape the Democratic and Republican party platforms if they manage to get enough votes. If Johnson ends up getting 5% of the national vote (unlikely but he's at 5.2% in national polling...) it could radically change the American political landscape.

Its shut down, just not closed, you can thank the warmongering congress for that

What's that supposed to mean? That he signed an executive order saying that it was "shut down" while signing into law the 2012 Fiscal Year NDAA which in it basically forbids the transfer of "inmates" in Guantanamo Bay to other countries essentially keeping it open indefinitely (among other provisions)?

you mean enemies of the state involved with terrorists in foreign lands propagating war acts? you know what treason means right?

You know what due process means, right? Its one thing if these American citizens were killed while actively shooting at US troops. It would be perfectly justified if they were in a firefight allied with so

Article Three, Section Three"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The government's drone strikes seem to lack the whole "Testimony of two Witnesses". And last I checked, Congress hadn't gotten around to explicitly creating a special federal death penalty of "Blown to Flinders by a Hellfire missile". And blowing up minors because their parent was 'treasonous' seems an awful lot like "Corruption of Blood" to me.

The key concept you are missing that is leading to confusion is "enemy combatant." Lets use it in a sentence: Anwar al-Awlaki [youtube.com] was a recruiter for Al Qaida, and an enemy combatant linked to many attacks and attempted attacks against the United States and its allies, so he became a target for a Hellfire missile in Al Qaida controlled areas of Yemen. No need for a trial when he was in the enemy camp, so to speak, performing duties with them.

Your last sentence seems to be what is under debate. What is so difficult about arresting a suspect and putting them on trial instead of blowing up everything within a 50ft radius of their location? It'd be nice if we could manage this for all US citizens. Imagine if we could do it for all enemy combatants. If the Chinese were hunting Christian militants known to plot against the Chinese government - hunting them on American soil in cooperation with our government - I'd have a much smaller problem with

the Ohio Secretary of State has illegally placed "experimental" software on voting machines in some counties; illegal because he should have gotten approval from a board. This was done just a few days before the election and an emergency suit has been filed to stop it.

If you read the contract [bradblog.com], there are a number of things that jump out at you.

The contract was signed September 17, 2012. Given the time needed to generate quotes, negotiate the contract, and work it through legal, it is obvious that this was in the works for some time prior to that.

If you read pages 17 & 18, the purpose is to export comma separated value (csv) files in the format specified in the contract.

The program is written in COBOL. (As has been discussed many times on Slashdot, all great hacks ar

The Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners held a meeting with the vendor in May, held another meeting in June, and then an order was placed for software to support exporting in CSV format in September. You can't think of a more likely scenario for the meetings and order than FRAUD! MASSIVE OBVIOUS FRAUD!!??

Show us your stuff.We want to do this different, can you change it? Talk to lawyers, talk to budget office, agree on price, schedule, and delivery.Here is an order.

Just to recap, the OHIO REPORTING SYSTEMS DOESN'T NEED THIS SOFTWARE! It already tabulates the results as they are. What Ohio have ordered is an interface to something else. What happened in August is they were caught rigging the election, they need to improve their rigging and that needs early voting data:

It is NOT needed for the election, because it is not used in any other State.

Each state choosing what they want to do isn't a bug, it is a feature of American federalism. If Ohio wants to use CSV files to feed their system, that is their business, not Indiana's or Michigan's. Some states have better ideas on various questions than others.

The order for the software was placed in September, but they were talking to the company in May, and probably June, just based on the record.

So, if "fraud" was detected, who complained to the Secretary of State? Who complained to the Attorney Gen

Jill Stein has my vote. It's hard to be a liberal living in the DC suburbs, constantly being harassed by two-party evangelicals.

But, she has a good head on her shoulders, and she knows exactly what it will take to break out of this awful economy.

It turns out that you can't just exploit labor forever and expect them to have any money left to spend. For too long people have been alienated from their right to an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. She will work hard to fix that, and get us back to hones

Yep, even though I don't agree with Stein's positions on a lot of things, I'd much rather her run the country than Obama or Romney. Why? Because she'd do exactly what she said she would. Romney has said just about everything under the sun to please people, he's been pro-government healthcare (heck, Obamacare is basically Romneycare at the federal level!) he's been anti-government healthcare, etc. Obama has done mostly the same, he's promised to end wars and ends up starting new ones, he promised a transpare

I wish I could have more faith in the motivation of each of these fringe party candidates.

It's interesting how they always seem to help the candidate that they would least agree with. Especially in a close election where so much was at stake, I think it's perfectly appropriate to hold these candidates and their voters accountable for whatever happens, just as I believe Ralph Nader helped George W. Bush.

Do I believe Ralph Nader meant to help GWB get elected? No, but he had to know that there was a distinc

Do any of you believe that any of these "third-party" candidates are particularly impressive all-around?

I'd love to see more 3rd party candidates in local elections, but these parties (Libertarian, Green, Constitution) are putting the platforms out there the best they can, using the Presidential election as the stage. Once the platforms are clarified, people hopefully will start to listen and see if these alternatives are actually good, or just a bunch of hot air. We get that going, perhaps we'll see more local and state races fielding third party candidates.

Look at the issues on where the third parties differ. Look at the legislation and deeds Obama has done, look at what Romney has promised. In the ways that third parties are different, the "big two" are the same. Which candidate is anti-war? It isn't Romney and it sure isn't Obama. Which candidate wants to end the war on drugs? Neither Obama nor Romney. Which candidate wants to investigate the Federal Reserve System? Neither Obama nor Romney. Etc.

Yech, in response to the "Iran crisis" and Syria, Dr. Stein went off on a terrible anti-nuclear rant. Goal: eliminate all nuclear all the world round because it can never be safe, and all reactors produce bomb material... someone's never heard of Generation IV reactors. Hopefully the Green party can be convinced over the next few years that working against nuclear is working against "green" energy...

I think it is important to put a few things in context. First, Stein herself, the Green party, and a goodly amount of progressive leftists aren't against nuclear in its entirety, just technical, sociopolitical, and economic issues as it is currently implemented. If there were Thorium and similar (nearly no nuclear waste, safe without runaway reaction etc..) reactors, available for production en masse, unencumbered by patents and proprietary hangups, operated with the public good in mind instead of profit

You can compare the 3rd party candidates Johnson, Goode and Stein against Romney and Obama at voterscorecard.com
Since there is a Ron Paul write-in campaign and he is a certified write in some states like CA, he also can be selected.

Of what we are up against.If you start looking into all of the people that have come into power you will recognize that its a very small number of people from powerful families that have a history in MKUltra Mind Control. Accept for Obama and some others I havent looked up.Now im not saying this is all true, but if you start looking at the history and connecting the dots you start to wonder if we are living in free country.This video is talk from a previous mk ultra survivor, the best one I a have seen yet

Unfortunately this will get modded down, but it's true. Having a debate amongst candidates who will never get elected is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Focus needs to be on how to get these candidates electable - how to show most Americans that it does not *have* to be a two-party system.

I agree there should be focus on how to get these candidates elected. But these debates are not entirely useless. There are people who are not satisfied with R & D, and are looking for alternatives. These debates do help these people (how ever small percentage of the population they are), to choose their right candidate.

Focus needs to be on how to get these candidates electable - how to show most Americans that it does not *have* to be a two-party system.

As long as the election system is the way it is, it will be a two party system. Even if through some extraordinary circumstances a third party were to get support - like say uncovering that one of the existing parties is a satanic baby raping cult, because that's roughly the level of extraordinary you'd need - they'll either replace one of the existing two parties or return to obscurity, any three-way race is an extremely unstable constellation. And the only ones who can change that is Congress by a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate or 2/3rds of the states calling a congressional convention. Would you care to wager on the odds of a bipartisan constitutional amendment to end their power duopoly? I think the chances are better for me winning the lottery each week for the rest of my life. Until then, the game is rigged for third parties to lose.

It's actually not the only way. Each of the States control their own voting laws. All that is necessary is to amend the laws to allow Senators and Representatives to be elected via IRV, Condorcet, or whatever alternate system allows better representation in races with multiple winners.

But mathematically, a first-past-the-post system is a 2-party system. We need to move to a proportional representation system on the local levels, where we can affect change, and eventually it'll happen at the federal level, then the 2-party system will be dead.

This proportional representation system is already in place. In the US, we elect one president- can't really divide him up. W elect two senators per state and it could easily be divided if the people wanted a third party senator. As for the house of representatives, there are congressional districts and each and every representative is elected from them. If the Third part candidates wanted representation they could easily take one of those. It's happened in the past and can happen again.

It will not ever happen at the federal level simply because you need to change the constitution in order for it to happen

Actually, it wouldn't.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof

There's even less in the Constitution about how the president is elected, only that the electoral college makes the decision. The states get to decide how the electoral college is chosen, and Maine and Nebraska have already

To say otherwise is ignoring the US electoral system, the US constitution and processes that existed since the beginning of the country.

Really, since the beginning? What was the 12th Amendment then?

Leaving aside your lack of knowledge about history, the policy of winner-take-all for state electoral votes is not set in the Constitution. There's no need to adjust the constitution at all to fix that. But yes, a true multiparty system does generally elect representatives from a national pool, which would require a Constitutional change to line that up. But there's no change to the Constitution needed for some of the elements to be adopted

Where in the 12th amendment does it provide for the election of representatives? Are you really going to argue that a president can be split into different people? do you even know what proportional representation is?

You would need to amend the constitution because the representatives are supposed to represent the people that elected them, not some random person who was appointed because of an election malfunction you think is wise. And no, you will not amend the constitution even though it has been amended

I'm positive the representative in my district was elected by my district. What you are talking about is hogwash for the vast majority of races. You might be able to claim gerrymandering in some, but i doubt there is much to it.

Take a look at the Australian system. We took a look at yours in 1901 and made some improvements that could be done with a new system but awkward to do with the vast numbers of little poorly co-ordinated groups you have running your elections with all kinds of odd ways to collect ballots, let alone anything else (like voting on a weekend). The groups the US deploy overseas to help run elections on behalf of the UN are similar to the Australian Electoral Commission in the way they operate so you already ha

I've had this discussion before, it's not about the state's, but the people.

This reference is clearly to a proportional representation of the people's wishes.

That's our system, the people elect representatives on a district by district by state by state level for the federal government. That is the proportional system and that is what is in effect. If the populace wanted a third party, they would vote it in. If they want the democrat candidate, they vote them in. It's not rocket science.

No, the issue is those people wanting to impose their will over the will the people have spoken. If any third party wants representation, all they have to do is run for office instead of running for president then crying that they have no representatives and senators so everything needs changed for them.

Its a little more complicated than that. Since the system is rigged for people with money, its very difficult to get recognized if you are not taking money from corporations to do their will in congress. Sin

Actually, it's not just an exercise in mental masturbation. Strong third party candidates in debates when they were not run jointly be the Democratic and Republican parties have had strong impacts to the platforms of those two parties. So much so that they amended the eligibility requirements to make it basically impossible for any third party candidate to qualify, following Perot's performance in the last debate to include a candidate who was neither Democrat nor Republican. The differences in his polling

So you're saying that voting for a third-party is a great way to help insure that they candidate that represents you the least wins?

Your point is that third-party candidates do nothing other than siphon votes from the candidate that is closest aligned ideologically to that candidate, giving advantage to the candidate that represents you and your interests the least?

Why would we want these leaches in the mix at all!? Who in their right mind would vote for a third-party candidate knowing that it actively wor

Loons and fruitcakes? Your brain has been washed. Wake up, look around, and think about the true meaning of the word "democracy".

The primary goal of every right-minded American should be to eliminate the Democratic and Republican parties with EXTREME prejudice. They are two massive weights sitting on a balance beam and we, REAL FUCKING PEOPLE, are the fulcrum. FUCK THEM.

I see where you are trying to take it, but the proportional representation systems don't do as badly as you insist.

But then the point is, the 2 party system isn't the real problem. It's our system of voting that is wrong. So by focusing on breaking out of the 2 party system, we're focusing on the wrong problem (treating the symptoms rather than the disease).

If you can cure the symptoms, do you have to cure the disease? And if you treat the symptoms, it's easier to treat the disease. When we have a 2-party system, they'll ensure the voting system favors them. If we broke the 2-party system, then it would be much easier to change the voting system. And vice versa.

But then the point is, the 2 party system isn't the real problem. It's our system of voting that is wrong. So by focusing on breaking out of the 2 party system, we're focusing on the wrong problem (treating the symptoms rather than the disease).

It's the system of financing the voting system is what's wrong. Influence and Lobbying

It actually goes further than that, you want to get to the real root of the problem? start with education and spirituality.

People need information that isn't controlled by people that want to deny the world the truth, and the most important way to bring about the truth is practicing some kind of spiritual life (even if you dont believe in god). 80% of the people in the U.S dont do much work on their spiritual life, hence w

But the system of financing the voting system is affected by voting system itself. The simple plurality voting system used helps push towards a stable two party system. A stable two party system is much more corruptible.

Actually, it's not that uncommon to have a runoff between the two top candidates, or even runoffs just to GET 2 top candidates. That way at least gives the majority a voice, even if their ideal candidate doesn't make the cut.

Whether 2 parties or 2000, no candidate is ever going to do things exactly the way I want them. Heck, that's one of the problems we have now. "My Way or No Way". At least with multiple parties you aren't as likely to fall into the trap of political thinking in pure binary terms. Nor, fo

It's worth noting that, in the US, the Democrats and Republicans obviously recognize that the system of voting used doesn't actually work properly, which is why they implement their own runoff system in the form of their own primary elections.

Now, we have a party in power that 89% of the country disagrees with! Hooray!

So it's quite possibly no different from how it is now, then? The only difference from now is that people are actually voting for people that they disagree with so the other side doesn't win. Is it really any better to vote for the 'lesser evil' (someone who you disagree with)?

or instead of casting one single vote we could rank the candidates from best to worst and the canidate with highest over all score wins the election which would more than likely lead to moderate semi sane people getting elected as all of the parties realize that the start putting smarter people in and get rid of demagogues who will get both rated highly by one set of whackjobs and lowly by the nut-cases at the other end of the spectrum. so we would have a system rewarding sound reason instead of which char

or instead of casting one single vote we could rank the candidates from best to worst and the canidate with highest over all score wins the election which would more than likely lead to moderate semi sane people getting elected as all of the parties realize that the start putting smarter people in and get rid of demagogues who will get both rated highly by one set of whackjobs and lowly by the nut-cases at the other end of the spectrum. so we would have a system rewarding sound reason instead of which chari

You're assuming a simple plurality voting system, which is what is used 99% of the time in the US. It's the perfect voting system for exactly two choices, but for more than two choices it falls down completely due to effects like the ones you mention. Pretty much every single pass voting system is better, although they all do have some problems (none as bad as simple plurality) perfectly representing the will of the population. Personally I think that democracy is important enough that there's no reason to

If it's true, it's still not a problem. As it stands "third parties" are made up mostly of idealists who know that they don't have any chance of winning. All the hard-core pragmatists join the Democrats or Republicans. If a truly democratic voting system were implemented in the US, there would be more parties.

We have a 16 trillion dollar debt, and we are adding to it at an unsustainable rate of more than a trillion a year. We are heading for a cliff. The fruitcakes want to turn right, the loons want to run left, but the "moderates" think we should go straight ahead.

The problems facing our country were not caused by the fruitcakes or loonies. They were caused by mainstream politicians and the voters that support them.

Libertarians include both - full on anarchists to outright George III swapped for Koch Royalists, with just about anything you can think of good or bad in the middle. So in other words you can't tell, all you can tell is that they are people that think the word "liberty" is nice.